The Gulf: Between the Memory of History and the Law of the New World (2/2)

The evolution of the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) role can be understood as a transition from a framework for regional coordination among neighboring states to an active partner in issues affecting international stability. This shift did not occur overnight; rather, it is the result of a long process of institution-building, strengthening international relations, and recognizing that Gulf security is inseparable from global security. Furthermore, the partnership with the European Union carries significant meaning, as it underscores that the most sustainable international relations are not based solely on economic interests, but on the values and principles that protect those interests. Trade requires markets, but above all, it requires safe routes, stable rules, and mutual trust. “Interests may bring countries together, but it is principles that enable partnerships to withstand the test of time.”

From a historical perspective, this development recalls a truth known to sailors for centuries: the prosperity of ports is achieved not by controlling the sea, but by ensuring its openness. The Gulf’s coastal cities thrived because they were part of a vast network of communication, not because they closed their doors to others. This is the message that the Strait of Hormuz carries today; it is not merely a passage for energy, but an extension of a long maritime memory that began with ancient trading vessels, continued with pearl-diving boats and commercial ships, and has now reached the era of energy tankers and mega-ships connecting the global economy. The difference between the past and the present lies not in the importance of the route, but in the scale of dependence upon it. In the past, ships connected one port to another; today, they connect economies and continents. Consequently, safeguarding their security has become a shared international responsibility.

Thus, the Gulf–European statement sends a clear message: protecting freedom of navigation is not merely a defense of immediate interests, but a defense of the civilizational foundation upon which human movement has relied since the dawn of trade and seafaring. Reading this landscape through the lens of history reveals that the security of sea lanes was never a modern issue tied exclusively to the energy age; rather, it has always been a fundamental condition for the prosperity of civilizations. Nations that secured safe trade routes were able to build their influence, and cities that opened themselves to the sea became centers of knowledge, exchange, and culture. Therefore, the history of the Gulf is, at its core, the history of a route—a route that was not merely a space traversed by ships, but a space that forged human relationships, transmitted ideas before goods, and connected societies before it connected markets.

It is from this perspective that the Strait of Hormuz must be viewed today as part of this long memory. The strait traversed by modern ships is an extension of the route known to previous generations, differing only in tools and cargoes. Yesterday, sailing ships carried pearls and goods; today, ships carry energy and trade, but the message remains the same: the world needs stable routes to continue moving. This is the essence of the transformation revealed by the Gulf–European statement: Gulf security is no longer read as an isolated regional issue, but as an integral part of the global economic system’s security. Stability in the region does not serve the Gulf states alone, but every country that relies on international trade, supply chains, and energy flows.

Moreover, this statement reflects an important reality: international stature is built not only on the resources a country possesses, but on the responsibility it assumes toward global stability. True power lies not in the ability to disrupt a route, but in the ability to protect it and ensure its continued openness according to clear rules that safeguard everyone. “Law does not guard the sea because it grants power to one party, but because it prevents power from depriving others of their right to the route.” This idea is what made the Law of the Sea one of the significant achievements in regulating interstate relations; it transformed seas from spaces of power competition into domains governed by rules seeking to balance national sovereignty with freedom of international navigation.

Consequently, rejecting any unlawful restrictions on passage through the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a political stance, but a defense of a historical and civilizational principle: that the routes connecting the world must not become hostages to disputes, because closing a route harms not just one party, but everyone. If the Gulf has historically known how to serve as a bridge between civilizations, its role today is evolving from protecting trade to contributing to the protection of the system upon which global trade rests. This shift elevates the region beyond a mere strategic location; it becomes a partner in shaping stability. From Kuwait, whose ships once sailed toward distant horizons, to the Gulf states that today defend freedom of navigation and international rules, the sea remains present in the region’s identity and message. The maritime memory has not disappeared; rather, it has transitioned from the sails of ships to the language of law, institutions, and international partnerships.

Ultimately, the value of the Gulf–European statement lies not only in the words it contains, but in the deeper meaning it conveys: that the world, despite changing times, still relies on the same truth known to sailors for centuries—that a safe route is the foundation of prosperity. History does not immortalize those who tried to own the route, but those who understood that the value of the route lies in its openness to all. From the Gulf, which was once a route for civilizations, to the world that today depends on its sea lanes, the message remains one: protecting navigation is not just about protecting ships, but about protecting the journey of civilization itself. Ships may change, cargoes may shift, and balances of power may alter, but the unchanging truth is that civilizations do not thrive when routes are closed, but when they are opened, and that only law can make the sea a bridge for life rather than a battlefield for conflict. The Gulf was never merely a path through which ships passed… it was a path through which civilization itself passed.